Moczko v Circuit Court in Katowice (Poland)

On an extradition appeal, the court must assess proportionality in light of material developments since the lower court’s decision where those developments are properly before it. The public interest in honouring extradition obligations must be balanced against the individual and family impact of surrender. Extradition may be disproportionate under Article 8 where its effect on dependent children would be exceptionally severe, particularly where the requested person is their sole carer and no suitable alternative care is available.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Goldspring’s decision of 12 April 2017 ordering her extradition to Poland to serve the balance of an eight-year sentence. At the time of the lower court’s decision, it was expected that she would not care for her two young children.

After the decision, the appellant was released on conditional bail and resumed the day-to-day care of both children. The local authority confirmed that she was their sole carer and had a loving and proper relationship with them. The central issue was whether, in light of those changed circumstances, upholding the extradition order would disproportionately interfere with the Article 8 rights of the appellant and her children.

1. Appeal allowed. The court discharged the appellant.
2. The court was required to consider for itself whether extradition had become disproportionate in light of the substantially changed circumstances since the District Judge’s decision. The respondent accepted that the question had to be reconsidered on the current evidence.
3. The seriousness of the offending and the substantial public interest in honouring treaty obligations and returning persons to serve outstanding sentences weighed in favour of extradition. The appellant had, however, already served a lengthy period of imprisonment, and the remaining period was relatively short.
4. The appellant’s breaches of her Polish licence conditions were material but, in the context of the case as a whole, were not significantly serious. The principal consideration was the effect of extradition on the two children.
5. If extradited, the appellant would return to Poland and might be imprisoned with the children, or the children would remain in the United Kingdom under local-authority arrangements. There was no family in Poland able sensibly to care for them. The impact on the children would therefore be exceptionally severe.
6. In those circumstances, extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant and her children. Had the changed facts been before the District Judge, the proper order would have been discharge rather than extradition.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s order of 12 April 2017 was allowed, and the appellant was discharged.